Citation

Tellis AJ. Stud. Conflict Terrorism 1996; 19(2): 117-151.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/10576109608436000

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The term exit strategy is misleading because it elevates exit considerations over and above the demands of proper goal setting and mission accomplishment in limited engagements. Despite this fact, developing an appropriate exit strategy is mandated by the Clausewitzean framework that suggests three components: 1. a clear statement of the political objectives to be pursued; 2. a derivative group of operational goals that must be secured; and 3. a set of fallback options that must be anticipated if the original objectives and goals cannot be attained. Examining six U.S. interventions ‐with a view to understanding whether and how exit strategies were integrated into entry decision‐making, this study finds that they have been well integrated only in the case of high‐level interventions. They have been mostly neglected in low‐ and midlevel interventions, even though the latter incur all the potential hazards associated with high‐level engagements.

Language: en